25 replies to this topic

[merlinski]

I'm sick and tired of hearing conservatives whine about the so-called liberal bias in the media. It seems like it is everywhere these days, editorial sections, the internet, even mainstream media conservatives themselves. I want to have a nice, clean, poll/debate over whether you believe there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media. Here's my opening argument:

When you talk about mainstream media, you're talking about major Newspapers/magazines, TV Channels, and the Radio. The most common examples are these:
Newspapers:
New York Times
Washington Post
LA Times

TV:
CNN
Fox News
ABC
NBC
CBS

Radio:
Limbaugh and his ilk
Air America
NPR

The primary reason for a conservative outcry about liberal bias is criticism of President Bush. Now, I think that this premise is, in itself, a ridiculous idea. Look at the Bush presidency as of now, and the potential scandals/stories that could have been big negative points but weren't:
Revealing a NOC CIA Agent
Lying in the State of the Union
WMD's
I'm ignoring the stuff like the entire Iraq war because I think these examples are enough for now. Now, none of these things were turned into big scandals. Obviously, there were stories, but nothing approaching the outcry over Clinton, which I'm getting to next. Clinton lied under oath about recieving a blowjob in the oval office. This was enough to have the media hound him for 1.5 years. Bush has lied, and his lies have lead to deaths or putting people in danger, yet the media has not seized upon this. I'm not suggesting a conservative bias (yet), I'm just saying that there have been more opportunities for a big scandal under Bush that haven't been fully explored.

Now, lets look at some statistics. During the 2000 Presidential Race, the New York Times, the most popular target of the liberal-bias outcry, ran twice as many positive stories about Bush as they did about Gore, and fewer negative stories. Why would a liberal-leaning paper do this?

CBS refused to air a Moveon.org political advertisement during the Superbowl. Why would a liberal station do this? Answer: they wouldn't.

The fact is that the mainstream media (CNN, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS) aren't liberal, they are by-and-large neutral. People see attacking Bush as a liberal bias, but these same soures attacked Clinton even more, for lesser offenses. It's not a matter of political bias, its a matter of a bias towards a story. I personally think that they could have gotten more out of the Bush presidency, but reporters asking tough questions isn't bias, it's reporting.

Ok, now lets look at the conservative media, primarily Fox News.

Obviously, Rupert Murdoch (founder of Fox News) is a political conservative (he's funded many conservative think-tanks and consistently makes large donations to conservative causes). When he created the Fox News Network, he put Roger Ailes at the head of the station. For those of you unaware of him, Ailes is a Republican Campaign Consultant and Executive Producer of Rush Limbaugh's show. This is the man who, when he came to Fox News, asked all the current employees whether they were liberal or conservative. Fox News has two major shows that it airs regularly other than the news, which are Hannity and Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor. The "liberal" Colmes is actually a moderate who consistently praises Bush, and Sean Hannity is the most conservative man in the mainstream media today. Bill O'Reilly claims to be an independent, but is actually a registered Republican.

Studies found that people who watched Fox News as their main news source were much more likely than the average american to have one of these misconceptions about the war:
1. We have found WMD's
2. There was a direct link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
The more Fox News a study participant watched, the more likely they were to have a misconception.

So what you have here is a mainstream media with no bias, and Fox News with a conservative bias. The only consistently liberal media source is Air America Radio, which is only available in a few cities as of now. I don't see how you can extract a liberal bias from that.

[Evil]

There's plenty of bias everywhere. Conservative or liberal.

I'll start with conservative bias. The most obvious, Fox News. Although they keep the guests on the show "fair and balanced" with both sides of the left and right wing spectrums, they're definitely a conservative outlet. Ahem, Rupert Murdoch.

Then of course you have the primarily conservative radio icons like the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys.

I'll now touch on the liberal bias in the media.

New York Times: reported that John Ashcroft's most recent warning to the public, about the seven terrorists the government is currently looking for and who pose a substantial threat to you, me, and our families, was a "political move".

What they do, is make stories like Nick Berg's, the American beheaded in Iraq, a side story. The day that Nick Berg was murdered what was the cover story of the NYT? Stray shots hit a mosque, causing minor damaging and injuring no one. Nick Berg's sad story solidifies for Bush and most people in general, the exact enemy we're fighting. Ruthless. Disturbing.

I read the NYT almost every day in my World Affairs class. I'm not making this up.

Read the editorials page. It's like the DNC mouthpiece. Anti-Bush. Pro-Kerry. If the NYT had lips, it would be the first to kiss Kerry's ass, maybe even wipe it for him.

Okay, onto the BBC. I have one thing to say that truly speaks for itself. The BBC went as far as to ban the term "dictator" in all reporting when Saddam Hussein was the subject or even mentioned. Saddam Hussein, if anyone can rationalize it for me, was not a dictator?

Check it: I couldn't believe the BBC myself

This is long, I'll wrap it up.

CNN's headline today: "Death Toll: U.S. Iraq Casualties Setting Records " another disheartening and vague title directed at home morale. Anyone remember the last time CNN reported a good story? They don't, not anymore. The good stories make Bush look too good for Ted Turner.

They don't report about the economy coming out strong this year. They don't talk about the hundreds of the thousands of new jobs created (600,000 was the last number I heard thrown around in April) and most recently the jobless rating dropped another 3+%. They don't talk about the GDP taking strides (again). They don't talk about radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr losing dozens of followers a day and the protests that Iraqis are holding AGAINST him.

Conservative bias is distinct. Liberal bias is subtle. But they're both very much there.

About Bush "lying", I'll say this. Until Bush puts on a turban, crawls in a cave, and collects intel, he will always be subject to the failures of others whom we depend on for it. Saddam Hussein thought he had weapons. We thought he had weapons. Even Al Gore did as recently as 2002.

About CBS: They're in the business of making money, alienating a spectator or watcher isn't good for business.

And what do you mean Merl, when you say the media refuses to seize the opportunity to criticize Bush? Read the NYT, read the LA Times, watch CNN. There's barely ever good news. It's practically all bad reporting for the sake of faulting Bush's image. Ever watch CrossFire? They sacrifice the little conservative 12 year old with a bow tie to every rabid liberal they can find. Al Franken gets tons of face time, all he does is call Bush a "liar, liar, pants on fire". Let's not forget Ganeane(sp?) Gerafalo (sp?) who hosted a CNN television spot for over a week, spewing all the vile rhetoric she could fit into a half an hour.

Edited by Evil, 31 May 2004 - 07:32 PM.

[merlinski]

New York Times: reported that John Ashcroft's most recent warning to the public, about the seven terrorists the government is currently looking for and who pose a substantial threat to you, me, and our families, was a "political move".

The Times was observing that the seven terrorists were not a new story, that they had been on the top of the governments "look-for" list for literally months, and that there had been no new justification for the warning to come at this time.

What they do, is make stories like Nick Berg's, the American beheaded in Iraq, a side story. The day that Nick Berg was murdered what was the cover story of the NYT? Stray shots hit a mosque, causing minor damaging and injuring no one. Nick Berg's sad story solidifies for Bush and most people in general, the exact enemy we're fighting. Ruthless. Disturbing.

The day he was murdered they wouldn't get the story, the news is reported the day after.

The story of the Iraqi Prisoners solidifies for the Iraqis the exact enemy they are fighting. Ignorant. Hypocritical. It goes both ways, it's unfortunate that many people refuse to see how we look like the ones committing the atrocities to them. It's like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - both sides do horrible things. I'm not saying that what they did was justified, I'm just saying that both sides in this conflict give the other ample reasons to hate them.

CNN's headline today: "Death Toll: U.S. Iraq Casualties Setting Records " another disheartening and vague title directed at home morale. Anyone remember the last time CNN reported a good story? They don't, not anymore. The good stories make Bush look too good for Ted Turner.

That's because death sells. I'll reply to this with a quote from your own post: "About CBS: They're in the business of making money". CNN is in the same business, and what's going to attract more attention, a positive story or a negative one? It's been the same for years, this isn't partisanship, this is the morbid fascination Americans have with bad news, and it transcends party bounds.

About Bush "lying", I'll say this. Until Bush puts on a turban, crawls in a cave, and collects intel, he will always be subject to the failures of others whom we depend on for it. Saddam Hussein thought he had weapons. We thought he had weapons. Even Al Gore did as recently as 2002.

It doesn't matter if he didn't gather the intelligence, he is directly responsible for any and all information that he reports to the American people. Presidents have power that is supposed to be limited by an equal amount of responsibility to the American people.

About CBS: They're in the business of making money, alienating a spectator or watcher isn't good for business.

I was using that example to point out that they don't have a liberal bias. I agree. News outlets are trying to make money, which is usually accomplished by reporting bad news.

And what do you mean Merl, when you say the media refuses to seize the opportunity to criticize Bush? Read the NYT, read the LA Times, watch CNN. There's barely ever good news. It's practically all bad reporting for the sake of faulting Bush's image. Ever watch CrossFire? They sacrifice the little conservative 12 year old with a bow tie to every rabid liberal they can find. Al Franken gets tons of face time, all he does is call Bush a "liar, liar, pants on fire". Let's not forget Ganeane(sp?) Gerafalo (sp?) who hosted a CNN television spot for over a week, spewing all the vile rhetoric she could fit into a half an hour.

They've had ample opportunity to create a scandal the size of Watergate or Lewinski, but they haven't created the outcry that they did in those cases. Al Franken only gets face time in bookstores and on Air America radio. Furthermore, he doesn't just call Bush a liar, be backs it up with one of the most well-researched political books I've ever seen.

Gerafalo was canned after CNN realized how liberal she was. Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity have been spewing vile rhetoric for years and show no sign of slowing down.

Edited by merlinski, 31 May 2004 - 08:06 PM.

[Evil]

Okay, so we agree on something, the media is bad altogether?

Quickly:

Ashcroft brought it up because of the increased "terrorist chatter" in the past month, rightfully so. The next thing the NY Times is going to say is that he's trying to scare Americans, but that the boogie-man does indeed exist.

And I know how a newspaper works, I'm aware of when they get their stories, the day after, but you knew what I meant.

Death does sell, and it upsets me a great deal to know that bad news is reported consistantly over the good news. Particularly in Iraq.

About WMDs: If me, Vacc, and CXWQ told you that Spoon had a gun, that he'd used it before, that we'd seen it, and that he gave it up just because he was a nice guy after he was done killing people, what would your reaction be?

We pump millions/billions into intel. So do the Brits. So do other countries around the world. We concurred that Hussein had WMDs. Bush relies on the intel provided to him, he is not at fault when that intel is corrupt.

And about scandal? Have you seen the news? Abu Graib has turned into something very similar to WaterGate. It's right now a pretty big scab.

About Gerafalo, I'm sure she was canned because of her film "career". At least that's the reason I read.

[cxwq]

I voted 'no' because I think the various biases more or less cancel out among all the media outlets. There are some that are horribly liberal biased and others that are just as bad in the other direction.

What I have to wonder is why people with internet access still watch broadcast news. 10 minutes playing with news.google.com results in tons more factual information than watching the full several hours of evening news on TV.

I read the whole report Merlinski mentioned re: Fox news and misconceptions about the war. It's a sliding scale with NPR at one end and Fox at the other and everyone else at various places in the middle. What is clear is that there is no 'one' news, there are many interpretations with each colored by the politics of the reporters, editors, owners, stakeholders, and even perceived viewership in question.

The responsible news consumer has no choice but to actively seek out opposing biases in order to get the full picture. Fortunately, this is easy given trivial access to global news sources.

[Evil]

Well said CX, I totally agree. Although I'm afraid that many are unaware of the bias that taints their daily news, whether it be convservative/liberal or otherwise.

[merlinski]

I'll agree that Abu Garib is equivalent to Watergate as soon as Bush resigns due to public outcry.

I agree for the most part that there are liberal and conservative outlets in the media. I also agree that NPR is slightly left-leaning, but I don't think that they are as liberal as they are often made out to be. In fact, a decent number of their news anchors are conservatives. Hell, most of the time they just play classical music and artsy talk shows anyway.

I agree completely that the problem with the media is biased towards selling copies/getting listeners at the expense of good, honest reporting. I think there's one quote that sums it up:
"Asking if there is a liberal or conservative bias in the media is like asking if Al-Qaeda puts too much olive oil in their hummus. The problem isn't their hummus, it's that they're trying to kill us." - Al Franken

Quick replys:

The Times was drawing logical conclusions from the timing of Ashcroft's announcement. Once again, I ask why, if they are liberal, they ran twice as many pro-Bush stories as pro-Gore stories.

About the you, Vacc, cxwq example: I'd make sure Spoon actually still had the gun before I went to his house and shot him.

Regardless of how much money we spend on intel, Bush is responsible for what he reports. If it turns out to be wrong, I expect a full public apology and clarification. I'll stop making this an issue if he gives a speech announcing that they were wrong, and that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

[Death]

Nothing is ever presented entirely without bias. The word "bias" has received something of a bad connotation in the English language, but in and of itself, bias is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Everyone bears some predisposition to those things which they encounter in their everyday lives. This predisposition is a bias. For example, say there's a man walking down the street; at some point in this walk, this man (who, let's say, happens to be white) passes by a black man. Now everyone, of course, realizes that if the white man decides to turn and walk in some direction to avoid the black man, that white man bears a bias. However, if he takes NO action, if he barely even notices that the man's skin is a much different color than his own, the white man is still biased. Now, however, his bias just leans towards acceptance and integration as opposed to intolerance and segregation.

No matter how one looks at something, their perception will be slanted by the history of their experiences. This is an inescapable fact of life. The only thing anyone can do is to strive to remember this, and to attempt to filter everything they hear or see through the knowledge that, in some way, all the information one receives in life comes to them slanted and will leave from them slanted.

[Evil]

Regardless of how much money we spend on intel, Bush is responsible for what he reports. If it turns out to be wrong, I expect a full public apology and clarification. I'll stop making this an issue if he gives a speech announcing that they were wrong, and that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

But do you get what I'm saying that no president has a direct feed into the truth, only the truth that he is delivered in documents, portfolios, and files?

[Vintage]

Every single person I have talked to has their view on media bias. Most times the conversation eventually leads to FOX vs. CNN.
Every single liberal I have talked to thinks FOX is extremely Conservative, while CNN is balanced.
Every single Conservative I have talked to (including myself) thinks CNN is extremely Liberal while Fox is balanced.

I think this is because of what Evil said. Every man takes in what he experiences and observes it through his own bias filter. If the news gives the same opinion he has, it must be balanced. In not, it's biased.

This seems to be the case here. If someone were to look at both news sources fairly, that person would probably conclude that one leans left, the other leans right.

But since I have my own predisposition, Fox is balanced, and CNN is biased .

~Vintage

[Evil]

I think this is because of what Evil said. Every man takes in what he experiences and observes it through his own bias filter. If the news gives the same opinion he has, it must be balanced. In not, it's biased.

Death or CX said that, I can't take credit for it.

[merlinski]

But do you get what I'm saying that no president has a direct feed into the truth, only the truth that he is delivered in documents, portfolios, and files?

Yes, and I'm not blaming him for not knowing as much as not admitting he was wrong.

[Evil]

Go tell the Kurdish mothers that George Bush is the bad guy. Go tell the troops that they're the bad guys. Go tell the kids that shake their hands and wave to them and who play with them that our guys are the bad guys and that Bush should have let Saddam's even more wicked sons torture them ten-fold.

Go tell them that Merl. Because that's how I look at this war in most respects. We've done so much good that it's hard to even put into words. What we've seen day in and day out are the horrible stories, the stories that make us feel like we've been betrayed. When in truth we've been betrayed by our news networks and our news anchors.

Go tell the Iraqis they've been betrayed, tell them what we've done was wrong. You're talking about a people that would have and could have been tortured for generations to come, let alone the generations which have past.

Their was a great peece on MSNBC of pictures of soldiers in Iraq. Tons of pictures. And what surrounded them in those pictures? Pain, anguish, blood, tears? No, smiling little kids. Kids jumping up and down, swarming and hugging soldiers. Recent pictures of smiling kids in Iraq, happy to be freed, happy to see a smiling American in a tank? It can't be. But it is.

And this is a majority of Iraq I remind you. The anger and aggression directed towards troops remains primarily in the Sunni Triangle, which is populated by the people who received the kickbacks, the money, and the power from Saddam himself.

The north is calm. The south is calm. The country is almost back on track with the exception of a handful of places.

Edited by Evil, 01 June 2004 - 07:09 PM.

[merlinski]

Al-Sadr is one of the opposition leaders, and is a Shi-ite. Nuff said about that.

Ok, on to the moral argument.

First, I don't think the troops are bad people. I think they're some of the bravest people in this country (much braver than pretty much anyone in the Bush Administration other than Colin Powell), who are just being led by politically motivated fools. I'm personally of the belief that the only people who should be able to make war are those who are willing to fight it on the front lines.

I'm not saying that there haven't been positive byproducts of the war. I'm saying that I stand by my opposition of this conflict on the basis that I don't think it will do good in the long run. As soon as we can get out without looking like retreaters, we will. And do you expect democracy to work in a country where the 3 major factions would rather die than see the others in power?

Go tell the thousands upon thousands of American children victimized by Bush's education plan and budget cutting that he is a good man. Go tell the millions of Baby-Boomers who poured billions of dollars into Social Security that the "good man" decided that they didn't have a right to their money. Go tell the parents of the soldier who committed suicide after seeing too many of his friends die that major fighting is over.

Go tell the Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo that Clinton wasn't a good man.

See, I can do it too. I bet you didn't like Clinton, but the same argument works on behalf of him. Every president accomplishes some good. We judge them on the cost of what they achieve. Iraq is far from stable. Show me a time where Sunnis and Shi-Ites have cooperated where the aim hasn't been killing Americans.

Are we out of Iraq? You yourself drew attention to the fact that 138,000 Americans are still there. The war isn't over, so how can you judge the results?

[Evil]

I'm not judging the results, I'm judging our accomplishments thus far. And I never said that the process would be easy, neither did Bush.

Clinton and the U.N. acted too little and too late for the 10,000 murdered Muslims by Melosevic (sp?). The U.N. during the crisis, almost seemed predisposed.

About "Leaving No Child Behind", I think it's a good step in the right direction but I don't see it as a generous or huge stride towards anything spectacular. Some parts I disagree with, some I do not. But I like the idea of standardized testing for teachers, because I don't know about your experience in school(s), but some teachers have left me wondering how qualified they are.

I don't expect democracy to be a smooth or quick accomplishment in Iraq. I expect the Kurds, the Sunnis, and Shi'ites to figure out for themselves that the only existence is co-existence and that democracy was better than genocidal dictatorship.

And my feelings about Clinton are reserved for another argument for another time.

Rawrg Merl we need a time machine - so much speculation is hard to digest.

(Oh, and just because I'm a decidedly conservative doesn't mean I'm all-for-everything Bush does. As with any person of stature, I have my discrepencies)

*Quick note I don't think I can fuckin' spell

Edited by Evil, 02 June 2004 - 12:01 PM.

[merlinski]

Clinton and the U.N. acted too little and too late for the 10,000 murdered Muslims by Melosevic (sp?). The U.N. during the crisis, almost seemed predisposed.

What you just did was say that in Clinton's campaign, lives saved didn't matter because he could have saved more. Applying your logic to the Iraq war, Bush's accomplishments don't matter because millions of Iraqis were murdered under Hussein.

About "Leaving No Child Behind", I think it's a good step in the right direction but I don't see it as a generous or huge stride towards anything spectacular. Some parts I disagree with, some I do not. But I like the idea of standardized testing for teachers, because I don't know about your experience in school(s), but some teachers have left me wondering how qualified they are.

Standardized testing shouldn't be used to determine funding, least of all in the way Bush does it. His plan assumes that if a school does poorly, its cause the students and teachers aren't trying and deserve to be punished. The worst schools just get less funding and the vicious cycle continues. On top of that, teachers have to teach to the test if they want to recieve funding, so instead of recieving the best education, kids recieve the education needed to pass a standardized test.

I don't expect democracy to be a smooth or quick accomplishment in Iraq. I expect the Kurds, the Sunnis, and Shi'ites to figure out for themselves that the only existence is co-existence and that democracy was better than genocidal dictatorship.

I've always been of the belief that in order for government to work, the people have to figure it out for themselves. You seem to agree. Where, then, does invading a country and establishing a puppet government for US interests fit in in the "self-discovering" plan?

(Oh, and just because I'm a decidedly conservative doesn't mean I'm all-for-everything Bush does. As with any person of stature, I have my discrepencies)

Same here with Kerry.

[Evil]

I believe you took my Clinton-logic differently than I wanted you to. I'm just saying that he and/or the UN do not deserve substantial acclaim for their (in)action.

About the "No Child Left Behind" act, I agree.

And in Iraq, the US "puppet government" will be an intermediary (fuck spelling) for the next Iraqi chosen joint delegation. From what I've read so far online and heard on the good old TV, the Iraqi government that we'll see is kind of like a time-share setup. Different delegates will be alternating but a joint governing council will be made up of three elected leaders from the Shi'ite, Sunnis, and Kurds.

Sounds like a good idea on paper. But wait, so did communism.

(Merl answer my PM cupcake)

[merlinski]

I believe you took my Clinton-logic differently than I wanted you to. I'm just saying that he and/or the UN do not deserve substantial acclaim for their (in)action.

*snip*

(Merl answer my PM cupcake)

I interpreted the logic to mean that Clinton doesn't deserve a lot of credit because it took him a while to do anything. I also interpreted your earlier logic to mean that Bush deserves credit because of the people he has potentially saved. I was applying one to the other, saying that if Bush gets credit for saving people, so should Clinton. And both could have intervened sooner, but didn't, so that argument doesn't work against Clinton.

Oh shit, PM's... I never check those...

Edited by merlinski, 02 June 2004 - 03:04 PM.

[Diablo]

I'm gonna be honest and say I didn't read all of that, but here's my opinion on the matter anyway.

The general media has a liberal bias. All of the major magazines (Newsweek, Time) are always talking about the bad things that are happening in our country now that Bush is president. The television news stations do this too. CNN, NBC, MSNBC, all of them talk about bad things that happened in Bush's term. They put out what the public wants to hear, that we made a mistake to go into Iraq and that everyone there hates us.

Fox News is the only reliable source of conservative-based news. They talk about our progress in Iraq, our economy getting better, and the jobs that have been made. I find Fox News to be a bit more neutral than other news stations because they are always welcoming liberals to come on their station, whereas conservatives are not on liberal stations nearly as much.

[cxwq]

They put out what the public wants to hear, that we made a mistake to go into Iraq and that everyone there hates us.

Saying what the public wants to hear and having a liberal bias are completely different things.

Fox News is the only reliable source of conservative-based news. They talk about our progress in Iraq, our economy getting better, and the jobs that have been made.

Conservative-based news is... what conservatives would like to believe?

I'm coming from a liberal perspective here, but I can't imagine why anyone might consider Fox News reliable.

From the bit you didn't read:

Studies found that people who watched Fox News as their main news source were much more likely than the average american to have one of these misconceptions about the war:
1. We have found WMD's
2. There was a direct link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
The more Fox News a study participant watched, the more likely they were to have a misconception.

In addition, the study found that a quarter of Fox News viewers thought that world opinion was in favor of the war. CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN viewers (in increasing order of accuracy) had a better understanding of reality. I say reality because this isn't an issue open to interpretation like whether we're making progress or not.

[merlinski]

The general media has a liberal bias. All of the major magazines (Newsweek, Time) are always talking about the bad things that are happening in our country now that Bush is president. The television news stations do this too. CNN, NBC, MSNBC, all of them talk about bad things that happened in Bush's term. They put out what the public wants to hear, that we made a mistake to go into Iraq and that everyone there hates us.

Oh, and the major news magazines left Clinton alone during the Lewinski scandal? If criticizing a republican president makes the media liberal, than the media during Clinton's term was ultra-conservative.

Fox News is the only reliable source of conservative-based news. They talk about our progress in Iraq, our economy getting better, and the jobs that have been made. I find Fox News to be a bit more neutral than other news stations because they are always welcoming liberals to come on their station, whereas conservatives are not on liberal stations nearly as much.

They invite them on their shows so people like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity can turn off their microphones! if they disagree. The reason those hosts always look better isn't because they are right, or they are smarter, it's because they don't let the opposition speak. Bill O'Reilly has kicked people out of the "no-spin zone" for "lying" when they were just correctly pointing out a mistake he made.

Furthermore, the mainstream media has just as many conservatives as liberals. Hell, a good portion of NPR hosts are conservatives, and you can't say that Dan Rather is a liberal. The president of CNBC is Roger Ailes!! Tom Brokaw is also fairly conservative, and he's probably the best-known news anchor in the country. ABC is owned by Michael Eisner! Whereas journalists tend to be slightly to the left of the american public on social issues and slightly to the right on economic ones, the editors and presidents of News companies are almost exclusively conservative.

Give me an example of a so-called "liberal" station other than Air America Radio that you think doesn't have conservatives on their staff.

Edited by merlinski, 03 June 2004 - 11:26 AM.

[Evil]

Bill O'Reilly isn't my conservative icon. And to be honest, his "No Spin Zone" makes me sick.

And I'll say that every news source on TV or in print has both liberals and conservatives on their staff. But I think the real problem with the media isn't necessarily agendas, maybe it's really just a matter of objectivity. I mean that's the first thing I notice when I read certain newspapers, is how much emphasis they put on certain things than others.

They all report the news, just different news you could say?

[Diablo]

Like I said, mainstream news reports what people want to hear. During Clinton's presidency, people wanted to hear about him and Monica. During Bush's presidency, the media is concentrating on his faults because that is the new trend. It fluctuates month to month or year to year, but right now, I'd say the media is pretty liberal.

[merlinski]

Like I said, mainstream news reports what people want to hear. During Clinton's presidency, people wanted to hear about him and Monica. During Bush's presidency, the media is concentrating on his faults because that is the new trend. It fluctuates month to month or year to year, but right now, I'd say the media is pretty liberal.

So the media instantly becomes liberal when a Republican is elected?

All the logic you used in your post suggests that the bias is not towards one political side, but towards bloody stories that sell. That's what I've been saying!!

When there are soldiers being killed in Iraq, and the media reports soldiers being killed, it's not because they're liberal, its REAL, BAD, NEWS, that SELLS PAPERS.

Diablom do you even have any logical response to all the evidence and examples I've given?

[Groove]

Oh, chill your shorts merlinski. The only reason you poke your head out on this site anymore is to portray your political views and start debates.

I think what the boy was trying to say is while one party is elected into the executive branch as President, it's the other party's job to criticize. That's what keeps the other party on their feet.